[Buildroot] Buildroot maintainer and stable releases

Ulf Samuelsson ulf.samuelsson at atmel.com
Wed Jan 7 12:10:38 UTC 2009


ons 2009-01-07 klockan 12:28 +0100 skrev Peter Korsgaard:
> >>>>> "Ulf" == Ulf Samuelsson <ulf.samuelsson at atmel.com> writes:
> 
>  Ulf> but I had to disable SAMBA and STRACE and change to uCLibc-0.9.30
>  Ulf> since 0.9.29 does not compile for anything I tried.
> 
> Ok, why would you use 0.9.29 now 0.9.30 is out? Anyway, I'll do a
> 0.9.29 test compile in a moment.
> 
>  Ulf> I giess a new version of STRACE has probably been introduced
>  Ulf> and this broke the socat.XXX.patch.avr32 patches.
> 
> socat or strace?

sorry - strace.


> 
> It's probably caused by:
> 
> commit e3e68318e13e22e22c9619b24fc6dae1d8ac9e0a
> Author: jacmet <jacmet at 69ca8d6d-28ef-0310-b511-8ec308f3f277>
> Date:   Mon Oct 20 09:04:49 2008 +0000
> 
>     strace: bump version
>     
>     Fixes build with 2.6.27 kernel headers
> 
>  Ulf> HCE has a new AVR32 patchset in the Atmel fork, which 
>  Ulf> I hope to introduce soon.
> 
> Ok, but does it make sense when even HcE recommends people to use the
> Atmel fork instead?

Atmel Norway has come to the conclusion that since 
Builkroot does not have stable distributions
Atmel cannot rely on the main trunk.

That is a problem known to everyone, and
if this is fixed, then I see no reason for Atmel to maintain
its own fork.

It is not fixed by a system which has stable distributions
which are removed and replaced with another stable
distribution which breaks support for a number of systems.
Then distributions might be stable, but the system as a whole
is totally unstable, and unacceptable for professional use.

>  >> I haven't yet asked why this merge happens so rarely. Maybe lack of
>  >> time? OK, I'm already getting avr32-buildroot specific, but I think
>  >> updating the "devel" branch would be nice, even without testing
>  >> anything.  Currently the three branches "devel", "master" and
>  >> "atmel-2.3" are the same, pointing to the latest release.
> 
>  Ulf> Lack of time is the answer.
>  Ulf> The way it works is that HCE is doing the Atmel Branch
>  Ulf> and I am working on the main svn (even if HCE is providing
>  Ulf> patches from time to time).
> 
> With main svn you mean this tree? Maybe it would make more sense to
> keep the Atmel stuff in your own fork?

That is not my own fork, it is Atmel Norways fork.



>  >> > It's not the size in bytes as such, it's the special casing and
>  >> > (effectively) black box patches. Even when you test your changes on
>  >> > multiple archs there's a fairly big change that you break stuff for
>  >> > avr32/at91, or that you guys break it for the other archs. The same
>  >> > with moving packages to new versions or removing old versions, you
>  >> > cannot expect other people to forward port those arch specific
>  >> > patches.
> 
>  Ulf> That is why other systems like OpenEmbedded allow having more
>  Ulf> than one version of a package.
>  Ulf> A system that only allows a single version is really not useful.
> 
> Sorry, I disagree. Most packages only have a single version and that
> works fine. Almost everything under packages builds just fine on any
> sane architecture. Look at huge distributions like Debian with 18K+
> packages all building from the same sources on all archs.
> 
>  Ulf> A good system will allow buildroot to move to a 
>  Ulf> newer version for some architectures, while not
>  Ulf> breaking the build for other architectures.
> 
> I disagree. This is exactly what we SHOULDN'T do. We need to keep
> close to upstream and only provide the latest stable version (except
> for special situations) and work with upstream to fix problems if any.

Which will break architectures continously, so it will not allow
the use of Buildroot as more than a toy to introduce Linux
until people find something that really works.
 

> Anything else is just too much work with too little improvements going
> upstream.
> 

I do not disagree that we need to ensure that patches are fed upstream,
but the current way does not support working as a team project.
It is a single user system.

Since we have opposing views, then I think the rest of the 
people interested in maintaining buildroot, needs to 
also show their desires before any drastic actions in either
direction is taken.



Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson



More information about the buildroot mailing list